POLITICAL: The “jobs” address


*** begin quote ***

The purpose of the American Jobs Act is simple: to put more people back to work and more money in the pockets of those who are working. It will create more jobs for construction workers, more jobs for teachers, more jobs for veterans, and more jobs for long-term unemployed. (Applause.) It will provide — it will provide a tax break for companies who hire new workers, and it will cut payroll taxes in half for every working American and every small business. (Applause.) It will provide a jolt to an economy that has stalled, and give companies confidence that if they invest and if they hire, there will be customers for their products and services. You should pass this jobs plan right away. (Applause.)

*** and ***

The agreement we passed in July will cut government spending by about $1 trillion over the next 10 years. It also charges this Congress to come up with an additional $1.5 trillion in savings by Christmas. Tonight, I am asking you to increase that amount so that it covers the full cost of the American Jobs Act. And a week from Monday, I’ll be releasing a more ambitious deficit plan — a plan that will not only cover the cost of this jobs bill, but stabilize our debt in the long run.

*** and ***

But know this: The next election is 14 months away. And the people who sent us here — the people who hired us to work for them — they don’t have the luxury of waiting 14 months. (Applause.) Some of them are living week to week, paycheck to paycheck, even day to day. They need help, and they need it now.

I don’t pretend that this plan will solve all our problems. It should not be, nor will it be, the last plan of action we propose. What’s guided us from the start of this crisis hasn’t been the search for a silver bullet. It’s been a commitment to stay at it — to be persistent — to keep trying every new idea that works, and listen to every good proposal, no matter which party comes up with it.

*** end quote ***

Did you think that in the time that the nation waited this should have been a complete proposal?

The 1T$ over 10 years is a phantom cut.

I’d prefer a presentation that said:

“Let’s take 1% from these departments that equates to X dollars; from that let’s spend A dollars on this, B dollars on this, and C dollar on this.”

Imagine what a difference of attitude?

# # # # #

RANT: Immelt; is BHO44 kidding?


Obama invites GE’s Immelt to jobs speech
by Dave Boyer
Published on September 8, 2011

*** begin quote ***

The White House’s invited guests who will hear President Obama speak to Congress tonight about creating jobs for the common man include a CEO under fire for moving jobs to China and a mayor who recently built a six-foot wall around his mansion.

Jeffrey Immelt, chairman of GE and head of the president’s jobs council, tops the list of invited guests who will listen to Mr. Obama’s speech from the first lady’s box in the House chamber.

Mr. Immelt has been criticized for GE’s plan to move the headquarters of its x-ray business to Beijing; Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio Democrat, has even called on him to resign from his presidential post promoting U.S. jobs.

*** end quote ***

This guy, Immelt, is a perfect example of what’s wrong with this picture.

Crony capitalism, globalism gone awry, and tax breaks for “friends”.

The original intent was that the Government was funded from tariffs. Those tariffs would have prevented GE from taking those jobs to China.

Maybe the car industry could have saved itself from the unfair competition of social costs on them but not on imports.

We need a little economic nationalism here.

People and products need to cross borders easily. But that doesn’t mean stupidly!

# # # # #

INTERESTING: a fortiori


a fortiori (pronounced ah-for-she-ory) prep. Latin for “with even stronger reason,” which applies to a situation in which if one thing is true then it can be inferred that a second thing is even more certainly true. Thus, if Abel is too young to serve as administrator, then his younger brother Cain certainly is too young.

# – # – #

I never heard this one!

# # # # #

RANT: Listend to Crummy about SS and Ponzi


Today, I listened to Crummy argue that SS was NOT a Ponzi scheme.

Au contraire … …

In a very technical sense, it’s not. In a Ponzi, the victims have a the choice NOT to participate; in “social security insurance”, there’s no choice.

A caller challenged and he objected to the word “fraudulent”. He’s wrong! SSI was sold to the American people that it would always be tax free. It’s not! It was sold as “insurance”. It’s not! It was sold as retirement savings and disability insurance. It’s not.

It IS a fraud because the “lockbox” is full do IOUs. And, the “terms” change at the whims of Congress.

In last night’s debate, Herman Cain correctly cited Chile in the 1970’s escaping the trap of “social security becomes welfare”.

We need to learn from Chile. We need to call things as they are.

Screwed Up!

# # # # #